Mad, Bad & Dangerous to Know, or: ‘how I came to stop worrying and like the word bisexual’, Part 2

Mad, Bad & Dangerous to Know, or: ‘how I came to stop worrying and like the word bisexual’, Part 2

 

BiTheWay4CouplesI make people nervous. Most bisexuals do.

By people, I mean many (though of course not all) straights, gays and, yes, even other bisexuals, and those who don’t conform to standard categories of sexual orientation.

By nervous, I mean “people wish we would just go away, or at least keep quiet about it.” People think we cannot be trusted. People think we are liars. People think we are devious. People think we are diseased. People have more negative or ‘cold’ feelings about us than about any other social group other than IV drug users.

Wow. I mean – damn.

It’s all quite baffling to me. Because, when you think about it, being bi isn’t really a hard concept to grasp, is it?

“When I fall in love,” as the song goes, “it will be forever.” It’s just that for me and those like me it could be with a man or a woman, a person of any sex or gender. Quite simple on the face of it. So why does it confound people so much? Why do we make so many people nervous? Part of the answer lies in the myths surrounding the word bisexual and the preconceived notions people have of anyone who would publicly lay claim to the label.

Let me settle a few of those myths right now. This is my version of the nigh-on obligatory myth-busting post that pretty much every blog on bisexuality provides:

  • Existence. Yes – we do.
  • Monogamy. Yes – we can.
  • Fidelity. Yes – we can. And – we do.
  • HIV & AIDS. No – it’s not all our fault.
  • Confusion. No – we’re really not.
  • Indecision. No – that’s not what fluidity means.
  • Greed. Yes, we can have just one piece of cake.
  • Pants. Yes – we’re as capable as anyone else of keeping our various bits in them.
  • Choice. No – we cannot choose to be straight; we cannot choose to be gay; we did not choose our sexual orientation in some thoughtlessly frivolous moment of rapacious abandon. Who does?

All human beings are a mix of a myriad aspects, some we accumulate, some we’re born with. I’m monogamous and faithful by choice, for instance, always have been, but my sexual orientation is not a whim, trendy or temporary, and it’s not antithetical to those choices. But, sadly, even in the 21st century that’s still not self-evident to most people. Bisexuals usually have to make it clear who they really are, in some way, shape or form, when the subjects of our family, friends and relationships come up. It’s very inconvenient  -- and, yes, often painful and embarrassing – to have to pause to break down myths just so we can talk freely about key things in our lives and contribute to conversations about the world. I’m not talking about just taking a moment to clarify our sexual orientation or to explain things related to our personal, social and political identities. It’s not about just saying things like, “Oh, I’m bisexual, by the way, and my partner and I were explaining our take on the American Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to our kids the other day.”

I’m talking about always and also having to tear away at the mad, bad and dangerous stereotypes that stick to bisexual people like barnacles to a hull:

“Oh, I’m bisexual, by the way, and my partner and I…. oh, yes, my partner knows I’m bi, so no it’s not a secret, and yes I have only one partner, and no we don’t swing, so no this’s not an invitation for you to join us for a ménage à trois, and no I’m not telling you because I’m trying to proposition you for a bit on the side, and yes you can still trust me, and no I’ve never lied to you just because you never guessed, and no it’s not a dirty word, and yes you can use that word around children, and no I don’t have to stop calling myself bisexual just because I have a family now…. Anyway, we were explaining DADT to the kids the other day…”

Luckily, most bis don’t have to drop all that baggage all the time all at once! Most of us have learned to forge personal strategies to negotiate our interactions and present ourselves to our listeners in a more pithy manner. I would guess that each bi person develops their own signature style for how to handle it. Of course gays, lesbians and trans people have to do the same. But bisexuals have to tear the biphobic barnacles from the hull of the LGBT community, as well as from the straight. We have two closets to repeatedly come out of, and while challenged with defending ourselves from suspicion, ignorance or hate, we must also defend the very fact of our own unique existence, as individuals and as a community, and to myth-bust, to make it clear who we really are, again both as individuals and as a community.

Bisexual-Stick-FiguresMaking things even more challenging – bisexuals don’t always agree on how to fight this good fight (or if the fight is good or if we should fight it at all). And many people who are capable of attraction to either men or women, of loving people of any gender, refuse to call themselves bisexual. Many people don’t like the word.

I was one of those people for a long time. I didn’t use any word at all. The silence started out as a habit and persisted until it became deafening and began to erase too much of my history and to stifle the person I was growing to be.

Historically, there are a variety of reasons people have eschewed the word: [1] it’s been used to mean hermaphrodite, which is a definition that works in botany but not too well for people; [2] it’s been a synonym for swinger, which is not a reality for most people of any sexual orientation (a few bi people are polyamorous, as are some straight and gay people, but that in itself is not the same thing as swinging); [3] it’s been used to describe behaviour (usually in the sense of ‘bad behaviour’), something that people do rather than something that they are; [4] it’s seen as too restricting, partaking of prescribed sexual binaries and not descriptive of the fluid range of human desire or expression, and [5] like other LGBT people, using it could get the shit kicked out of you. For some people, bisexual is just too political a term and they don’t like politicising their sexuality or relationships. For others it can appear too divisive, supposedly detracting from the cause of overall LGBT unity.

For me, it was an issue of respectability. When I was growing up, I wanted to be a respectable girl (right now, I could give a flying fuck and a half, but that attitude only came with middle age!). Bisexual was not a respectable word in the late 70s and 80s, or even now. I got the message very early on, from books, movies, the media and people around me, that good non-serial-killing grown women just didn’t call themselves that and good teenaged girls didn’t stare longingly at movie star boobies one day and sneak behind the school bleachers to catch a kiss from a boy the next. Good girls had to choose and hopefully their choice would be the ‘right’ one. Being very liberal very early on, as I grew up and got into my own life, I worked to surround myself with people who were even more open-minded and liberal than me… so embracing LGBT rights and allowing people to think I was an ally was my first strategy for dealing with the outside world. Inside, my strategy was silence and avoidance – my own personal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

For a long time, I wouldn’t even tell myself. I mean, I made myself nervous. I absorbed all the myths and misconceptions and believed them enough to shun the word ‘bisexual’ for years and to hide my sexual orientation even from myself. I practiced the ‘No, you weren’t checking out her legs, you were just admiring her shoes’ variety of denial. As I got older, I got more confident admitting that I was attracted to women as well as men, but at the time there was no identifiable bisexual community around me, to help me feel accepted and grow into myself without derision or misunderstanding:

“Although patterns of bisexual behaviour have been documented throughout history and across cultures, bisexual men and women have gained recognition as a distinct sexual minority only recently. Bisexuals began to form social and political groups in the 1970s, but it was not until the late 1980s that an organized bisexual movement began to achieve widespread visibility... By the early 1990s, bisexuals were becoming an established presence in the organized gay movement, as reflected in discussions of bisexuality in the gay and lesbian press and the addition of ‘bisexual’ to the names of many gay and lesbian [LGB] organizations and events.”

Eventually, I grew up and got older (hopefully wiser) and stopped worrying so much. I started to like the word, to embrace it as descriptive of a community of like-minded individuals I had a lot in common with. I started to use it, historically, personally and politically. If people knew, they knew. And, yeah, it got better. Not all the time and in all ways, but being fully who I am and acknowledged for my orientation toward life and love, for my fully-fledged identity, is more important to me now than always making a ‘good’ impression or not making waves. So I blog, I vote, I sing, I sign petitions, I network, I volunteer my time, I raise my children to hopefully be caring, open-minded individuals, and whenever I can I let people in my respectable suburban corner of the universe know my mad, bad and dangerous-to-know self in all my glory and, hopefully, they (won’t kick the shit out of me and) will alter any negative impressions or stereotypes they have about the word ‘bisexual’ or the people who dare lay claim to the label.

And that’s it, really – my small bit.

“You are not alone… Become the strong, secure, happy person you are meant to be”
Mad, Bad & Dangerous to Know, or: ‘how I came to stop worrying and like the word bisexual’, Part 2

Mad, Bad & Dangerous to Know, or: ‘how I came to stop worrying and like the word bisexual’, Part 2

 

BiTheWay4CouplesI make people nervous. Most bisexuals do.

By people, I mean many (though of course not all) straights, gays and, yes, even other bisexuals, and those who don’t conform to standard categories of sexual orientation.

By nervous, I mean “people wish we would just go away, or at least keep quiet about it.” People think we cannot be trusted. People think we are liars. People think we are devious. People think we are diseased. People have more negative or ‘cold’ feelings about us than about any other social group other than IV drug users.

Wow. I mean – damn.

It’s all quite baffling to me. Because, when you think about it, being bi isn’t really a hard concept to grasp, is it?

“When I fall in love,” as the song goes, “it will be forever.” It’s just that for me and those like me it could be with a man or a woman, a person of any sex or gender. Quite simple on the face of it. So why does it confound people so much? Why do we make so many people nervous? Part of the answer lies in the myths surrounding the word bisexual and the preconceived notions people have of anyone who would publicly lay claim to the label.

Let me settle a few of those myths right now. This is my version of the nigh-on obligatory myth-busting post that pretty much every blog on bisexuality provides:

  • Existence. Yes – we do.
  • Monogamy. Yes – we can.
  • Fidelity. Yes – we can. And – we do.
  • HIV & AIDS. No – it’s not all our fault.
  • Confusion. No – we’re really not.
  • Indecision. No – that’s not what fluidity means.
  • Greed. Yes, we can have just one piece of cake.
  • Pants. Yes – we’re as capable as anyone else of keeping our various bits in them.
  • Choice. No – we cannot choose to be straight; we cannot choose to be gay; we did not choose our sexual orientation in some thoughtlessly frivolous moment of rapacious abandon. Who does?

All human beings are a mix of a myriad aspects, some we accumulate, some we’re born with. I’m monogamous and faithful by choice, for instance, always have been, but my sexual orientation is not a whim, trendy or temporary, and it’s not antithetical to those choices. But, sadly, even in the 21st century that’s still not self-evident to most people. Bisexuals usually have to make it clear who they really are, in some way, shape or form, when the subjects of our family, friends and relationships come up. It’s very inconvenient  -- and, yes, often painful and embarrassing – to have to pause to break down myths just so we can talk freely about key things in our lives and contribute to conversations about the world. I’m not talking about just taking a moment to clarify our sexual orientation or to explain things related to our personal, social and political identities. It’s not about just saying things like, “Oh, I’m bisexual, by the way, and my partner and I were explaining our take on the American Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to our kids the other day.”

I’m talking about always and also having to tear away at the mad, bad and dangerous stereotypes that stick to bisexual people like barnacles to a hull:

“Oh, I’m bisexual, by the way, and my partner and I…. oh, yes, my partner knows I’m bi, so no it’s not a secret, and yes I have only one partner, and no we don’t swing, so no this’s not an invitation for you to join us for a ménage à trois, and no I’m not telling you because I’m trying to proposition you for a bit on the side, and yes you can still trust me, and no I’ve never lied to you just because you never guessed, and no it’s not a dirty word, and yes you can use that word around children, and no I don’t have to stop calling myself bisexual just because I have a family now…. Anyway, we were explaining DADT to the kids the other day…”

Luckily, most bis don’t have to drop all that baggage all the time all at once! Most of us have learned to forge personal strategies to negotiate our interactions and present ourselves to our listeners in a more pithy manner. I would guess that each bi person develops their own signature style for how to handle it. Of course gays, lesbians and trans people have to do the same. But bisexuals have to tear the biphobic barnacles from the hull of the LGBT community, as well as from the straight. We have two closets to repeatedly come out of, and while challenged with defending ourselves from suspicion, ignorance or hate, we must also defend the very fact of our own unique existence, as individuals and as a community, and to myth-bust, to make it clear who we really are, again both as individuals and as a community.

Bisexual-Stick-FiguresMaking things even more challenging – bisexuals don’t always agree on how to fight this good fight (or if the fight is good or if we should fight it at all). And many people who are capable of attraction to either men or women, of loving people of any gender, refuse to call themselves bisexual. Many people don’t like the word.

I was one of those people for a long time. I didn’t use any word at all. The silence started out as a habit and persisted until it became deafening and began to erase too much of my history and to stifle the person I was growing to be.

Historically, there are a variety of reasons people have eschewed the word: [1] it’s been used to mean hermaphrodite, which is a definition that works in botany but not too well for people; [2] it’s been a synonym for swinger, which is not a reality for most people of any sexual orientation (a few bi people are polyamorous, as are some straight and gay people, but that in itself is not the same thing as swinging); [3] it’s been used to describe behaviour (usually in the sense of ‘bad behaviour’), something that people do rather than something that they are; [4] it’s seen as too restricting, partaking of prescribed sexual binaries and not descriptive of the fluid range of human desire or expression, and [5] like other LGBT people, using it could get the shit kicked out of you. For some people, bisexual is just too political a term and they don’t like politicising their sexuality or relationships. For others it can appear too divisive, supposedly detracting from the cause of overall LGBT unity.

For me, it was an issue of respectability. When I was growing up, I wanted to be a respectable girl (right now, I could give a flying fuck and a half, but that attitude only came with middle age!). Bisexual was not a respectable word in the late 70s and 80s, or even now. I got the message very early on, from books, movies, the media and people around me, that good non-serial-killing grown women just didn’t call themselves that and good teenaged girls didn’t stare longingly at movie star boobies one day and sneak behind the school bleachers to catch a kiss from a boy the next. Good girls had to choose and hopefully their choice would be the ‘right’ one. Being very liberal very early on, as I grew up and got into my own life, I worked to surround myself with people who were even more open-minded and liberal than me… so embracing LGBT rights and allowing people to think I was an ally was my first strategy for dealing with the outside world. Inside, my strategy was silence and avoidance – my own personal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

For a long time, I wouldn’t even tell myself. I mean, I made myself nervous. I absorbed all the myths and misconceptions and believed them enough to shun the word ‘bisexual’ for years and to hide my sexual orientation even from myself. I practiced the ‘No, you weren’t checking out her legs, you were just admiring her shoes’ variety of denial. As I got older, I got more confident admitting that I was attracted to women as well as men, but at the time there was no identifiable bisexual community around me, to help me feel accepted and grow into myself without derision or misunderstanding:

“Although patterns of bisexual behaviour have been documented throughout history and across cultures, bisexual men and women have gained recognition as a distinct sexual minority only recently. Bisexuals began to form social and political groups in the 1970s, but it was not until the late 1980s that an organized bisexual movement began to achieve widespread visibility... By the early 1990s, bisexuals were becoming an established presence in the organized gay movement, as reflected in discussions of bisexuality in the gay and lesbian press and the addition of ‘bisexual’ to the names of many gay and lesbian [LGB] organizations and events.”

Eventually, I grew up and got older (hopefully wiser) and stopped worrying so much. I started to like the word, to embrace it as descriptive of a community of like-minded individuals I had a lot in common with. I started to use it, historically, personally and politically. If people knew, they knew. And, yeah, it got better. Not all the time and in all ways, but being fully who I am and acknowledged for my orientation toward life and love, for my fully-fledged identity, is more important to me now than always making a ‘good’ impression or not making waves. So I blog, I vote, I sing, I sign petitions, I network, I volunteer my time, I raise my children to hopefully be caring, open-minded individuals, and whenever I can I let people in my respectable suburban corner of the universe know my mad, bad and dangerous-to-know self in all my glory and, hopefully, they (won’t kick the shit out of me and) will alter any negative impressions or stereotypes they have about the word ‘bisexual’ or the people who dare lay claim to the label.

And that’s it, really – my small bit.

“You are not alone… Become the strong, secure, happy person you are meant to be”
Everything’s Better In Stereo?
Posted inbibloggers bisexual thinking

Everything’s Better In Stereo?

Time and time again when reading the blogs and reports coming out of the US bi scene, I find myself wincing. It's because of one word - monosexual. I don't like it. I'm sure someone somewhere will suggest there's really good reasons to use it (maybe ev...
Lies, damned lies, statistics & suicide

Lies, damned lies, statistics & suicide

 

To the blog reader who searched
for "10 ways to kill yourself 
because you're bisexual" —

1. Please don't….

On Wednesday, 7 April 2010 at 11:03pm, on a blog by and about young women, someone in distress reached out. The bloggers responded quickly, opening a dialogue. Sadly, it appears the young bi reader seeking ways to kill herself (himself?) did not return. In the current moment, when the count of LGBTQ teens (or teens perceived to be queer by others) who have taken their lives seems to ratchet up daily, the empty response box under the bloggers' plea is chilling.

Seven teens have committed suicide in the past several weeks in the United States after suffering homophobic abuse and alienation: Justin Aaberg, 13, Minnesota; Seth Walsh, 13, California; Asher Brown, 13, Texas; Billy Lucas, 15, Indiana; Cody J. Barker, 17, Wisconsin; Tyler Clementi, 18, New Jersey; Raymond Chase, 19, Rhode Island. Two Canadian girls have taken their lives under similar circumstances: Jeanine Blanchette and Chantal Dube. Sadly, these deaths are not isolated incidents or a new phenomenon. This has been going on for far too long. In 2003, after five years of bullying and harassment, transgender teen Tesia Samara was found hanging in the family garage in Rockdale, Texas by her younger brother. Bill Clayton, a seventeen year old bisexual boy from Washington state, took his life in 1995 in circumstances so similar to the recent deaths that his mother Gabi felt she had to speak out this past week: "I’m angry. I’m reeling from the news. Asher, Billy, and Seth — and how many more we don’t know about — chose death rather than to live in the world we made."

The world we made. Over the past few generations, the collective 'we' in nations where these suicides are happening have made a world woven, of course, with decent human beings who know how to live and let live, compassionate neighbours, inclusive education, loving family and understanding friends. But, regrettably, this world also contains the weave of hate-filled bigots, apathetic onlookers, calculatingly litigious bean counters, and those who choose to remain ignorant of diversity because it is easier than opening their minds or hearts to those who don't conform to expectations or norms. And this is where the numbers game comes in. Each side of any of our cultural or political debates seems to be asking itself one core question: are there more of 'them' than there are of 'us'?

The numbers game is inevitable to an extent. It becomes a habit of mind when you are raised in a democracy, for at a base level, in democratic societies — from school elections to campaigns for national office — we thrive on the concept that the person or party with the most votes wins. So if there are more of 'us' than there are of 'them', then 'we' win. But along the way towards perfecting our democracies, we've had to reckon with the rights and needs of the underrepresented. Those who don't win the numbers game outright. A quote that is often erroneously attributed to Benjamin Franklin explains it this way: "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken away, not even by a 99% vote…. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority." 

In other words, in one way or another, at one time or another, every single one of us at some point in our lives, be it temporarily or congenitally, will find ourselves in a group, category or situation where we are outnumbered. And our rights as human beings are not to be abridged or abused because we lose the numbers game.

This goes to the heart of the bullying epidemic we're seeing today. The bullies believe they reflect majority opinion. They believe the majority of society has got their back and the ones they are targeting get the minority vote. Bullies don't comprehend freedom. They are the wolves voting on the life of the lamb.

This numbers game is fed by statistics. Of course we have to take into account the rights of minorities, the game says, but there are minorities and then there are minorities. You see, education and implementation of initiatives that inform the population and protect the rights of small groups still require time and resources. How do we allocate those resources? We have to be prudent, don't we? If a group is too small, if it is too far outside the mainstream, too different from the majority of us, how do we justify expending limited resources on them? The game then stops calling those minorities 'minorities', stops speaking of their human rights, civil rights or freedoms and starts to call them 'special interests' and begins to speak of not 'caving in' to their cries for 'special treatment'.

Nice twist, that. Neat little inversion. Peppered with code words. All of a sudden a group of people who are statistically outnumbered (blacks, Latinos, Asians, LGBTQ people, for instance) or are traditionally marginalised (women), become the bullies, not the bullied. The outrage of the majority is mobilised against those who are using 'identity politics' to claim 'special privileges' and are trying to force the vast majority of 'us' to bend to 'their' will. But no, the game says, we won't 'cave in' to their intimidation or to their 'agenda'. After all, why should we? Look how few of them there are? 

That was just the response some people gave to a recent report by the UK's Office of National Statistics regarding the number of bisexual, lesbian, gay (and they failed to count transgender) people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In 2009, the ONS reported that Britain's population was 61.8 million. This past month, the same agency claimed that there are only about 726,000 LGB people in all of Britain, a mere 1.5% of the population (I know. Those of you with calculators are going to say, wait, isn't 1.5% of 61,800,000 actually 927,000? Yeah, but who are we to quibble). Immediately the Daily Mail — a popular paper with right wing leanings, infamous for its 1934 reference to Hitler's "sturdy young Nazis" and the 1993 headline Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding— jumped on the 'caving in to special interests' bandwagon: Only one in 100 Britons is gay despite long-held myth. "The figure explodes the assumption -- long promoted by social experts and lobbyists -- that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten," the Mail says. And in a brilliant bit of Ye Olde Does-not-follow, they claim these low figures for bisexuals and gays are "further evidence that Britain remains a traditional society, [because] 71% told the same survey that they still regarded themselves as Christian."

'Lies, damned lies and statistics' is a phrase popularised most famously by Mark Twain to describe the persuasive power of numbers to bolster weak arguments. But it also illustrates the tendency of people to either applaud or disparage statistics depending on whether or not those statistics support dearly-held positions and preconceptions. Now this is not solely a Daily Mail or right wing tendency. We're all capable of this error, if we are over-eager about getting an important point across. But that does not excuse sloppy thinking or uncritical review of the numbers, or a biased presentation of the implications of the figures, particularly when so much is at stake. I hardly feel I am going out on a limb when I claim that what is at stake today, when it comes to the statistics about the LGBT population, are people's lives. "The number [of LGB people in Britain] is far lower," the Mail announces, "than the estimate used as a basis for the distribution of millions of pounds in public money to sexual equality causes." They then went on to quote Mike Judge of the Christian Institute who said, "A large amount of public money has been spent on the basis of higher figures, which have turned out to be a lie."

A lie. A deliberate falsification. Not 'previous estimates'. Not 'the results of studies with different methodologies'. Not 'the consequence of a variety of possible factors', such as LGB people not wanting to answer deeply intimate questions about themselves on the doorstep to a complete stranger with a clipboard while parents, partners, neighbours or other family members may be in earshot. Not that household surveys of this type are well-known to under-reach respondents who live alone, as many LGB people in Britain do because of a wide variety of factors (so say previous surveys). But rather, an outright lie.

They have lied to us. We have been hoodwinked. We, good people (i.e., good Christian heterosexual people, since the Mail took pains to continue to compare and contrast 'gay' and 'Christian' statistics throughout the article, as if both groups were mutually exclusive and directly comparable) have been deceived by the gay lobby's slick shell game into believing there were more of them than there are and money has been stolen out of our pockets  — the pockets of the majority of straight Christian Britons who ostensibly have little need of these 'sexual equality causes' that have been foisted on them because of deliberately falsified statistics. Mr Judge's implication is hardly subtle and a great deal can be easily extrapolated: we don't need to spend any more of our limited resources on these special interest anti-bullying programmes targeted at LGBT teens — the general anti-bullying campaigns will be enough. We don't need an expanded sexual orientation awareness module in sex and relationship education classes — just teach them about the regular old heterosexual birds and the bees without pandering to such a tiny minority's fringe interests. We don't need marriage equality, since this tiny minority already has civil partnerships — can you imagine the public funds that will need to be earmarked to change the system to allow just a portion of this handful of people to marry? There's so few of them, anyway, c'mon, they have enough. Enough is enough…. right?

Sentiments such as these are neither far fetched nor singular, nor a product of my imagination. And they are not limited to the UK. In the US, the Texan Republican Party published in their 2010 platform that "We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should 'family' be redefined to include homosexual 'couples'. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex… custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits." (Every time I read such statements, I'm prompted to ask if bisexuals would then be allowed to partially marry or half-maintain custody of their children. But I don't have the GOP's direct phone number, so I couldn't call. And something tells me my point would get lost in translation).

Such statements speak directly to the numbers game. We-the-majority feel we have the right to dictate the very deepest and most intimate aspects of the lives of that-minority.  We-the-majority will decide whose lives are truly valuable and worth living fully. And the effects of such thinking are devastating — in the 'special' case of LGBT youth, the effects are proving deadly.

Journalist Anderson Cooper put it so well during his recent appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show, when he spoke about "the words people use and the things people say" that enter into the consciousness of our children and teens. It "enters into their internal dialogue," he says. "And when you're a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself, and the worth that you give to yourself. I think we need to really focus on what language we're using and how we're treating these kids." What impact must the language of the Texan Republican Party have had on the citizens of Texas? the discussions they had over dinner? the sermons they listened to in church? the banter among kids in the school yard when a child that is a bit 'different' walks by? A child that is not in the majority? A child who walks, talks, dresses or, heaven forefend, even speaks words ("I'm gay. I'm lesbian. I'm bisexual. I'm transgender.") that mark them out as one of those 'special interests' who are lying to 'us' and forcing their agenda on 'us'. We'll show 'them'.

And the effects of these words and the deeds, policies and legislation that come in their wake are dreadful. Between 1970 and 2009, there have been over 150 worldwide studies that reported high rates of suicide among bisexual and gay people, particularly adolescents and young adults. As one American study summarised, bisexual and gay youth "are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30% of completed youth suicides annually." Other studies cite their figures in another way: these youth are "four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers." Two independent studies done in the late 90s, one in the US and one in New Zealand, report that "homosexual and bisexual men and women are at greater risk of suicidal ideation and overall mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts" throughout their lives.

But are these not just lies, damned lies and statistics as well? I think not. And not just because I agree with them and they bolster my argument. I judge statistics as openly as possible, looking into the way researchers collect and report their data, the funding bodies that back the studies, and the ideological bent of the people who do the study (one notorious and widely-published study on the purported 'non-existence' of male bisexuals turns out to have been done by a man with a noted homophobic eugenicist bent). I also judge statistics by their deeds — or rather, the deeds of those who wield them. Truth in the hands of the corrupted does little if any good. Even if a statistical report is unassailable in its methods, if it is used uncritically, hard-heartedly or self-interestedly the actions taken in its name can be injurious and, therefore, must be challenged. Basically, statistics are not there to make the majority 'more right' or 'more deserving' than the minority or marginalised.

What the LGBT teens who are now at risk do not need to hear is that some study says their numbers are so small they don't matter. Those that bully them do not need to hear that their parents, teachers, ministers, police and politicians will somehow and in some way turn a blind eye or, god forbid, support them in perpetrating their abuse because, heck, they outnumber the 'others' anyway.

What they need to hear is that they don't have to prove their worth to people who disparage them. They need to hear that they are good enough. That they are worthy. That they don't have to live either by the cloud or the sunshine shone by whatever evidence, statistics or research is cited at any particular moment in time. They need to hear that they are valued just as they are. That they are owed equal human and civil rights not because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. They are owed them because they are people.



Lies, damned lies, statistics & suicide

Lies, damned lies, statistics & suicide

 

To the blog reader who searched
for "10 ways to kill yourself 
because you're bisexual" —

1. Please don't….

On Wednesday, 7 April 2010 at 11:03pm, on a blog by and about young women, someone in distress reached out. The bloggers responded quickly, opening a dialogue. Sadly, it appears the young bi reader seeking ways to kill herself (himself?) did not return. In the current moment, when the count of LGBTQ teens (or teens perceived to be queer by others) who have taken their lives seems to ratchet up daily, the empty response box under the bloggers' plea is chilling.

Seven teens have committed suicide in the past several weeks in the United States after suffering homophobic abuse and alienation: Justin Aaberg, 13, Minnesota; Seth Walsh, 13, California; Asher Brown, 13, Texas; Billy Lucas, 15, Indiana; Cody J. Barker, 17, Wisconsin; Tyler Clementi, 18, New Jersey; Raymond Chase, 19, Rhode Island. Two Canadian girls have taken their lives under similar circumstances: Jeanine Blanchette and Chantal Dube. Sadly, these deaths are not isolated incidents or a new phenomenon. This has been going on for far too long. In 2003, after five years of bullying and harassment, transgender teen Tesia Samara was found hanging in the family garage in Rockdale, Texas by her younger brother. Bill Clayton, a seventeen year old bisexual boy from Washington state, took his life in 1995 in circumstances so similar to the recent deaths that his mother Gabi felt she had to speak out this past week: "I’m angry. I’m reeling from the news. Asher, Billy, and Seth — and how many more we don’t know about — chose death rather than to live in the world we made."

The world we made. Over the past few generations, the collective 'we' in nations where these suicides are happening have made a world woven, of course, with decent human beings who know how to live and let live, compassionate neighbours, inclusive education, loving family and understanding friends. But, regrettably, this world also contains the weave of hate-filled bigots, apathetic onlookers, calculatingly litigious bean counters, and those who choose to remain ignorant of diversity because it is easier than opening their minds or hearts to those who don't conform to expectations or norms. And this is where the numbers game comes in. Each side of any of our cultural or political debates seems to be asking itself one core question: are there more of 'them' than there are of 'us'?

The numbers game is inevitable to an extent. It becomes a habit of mind when you are raised in a democracy, for at a base level, in democratic societies — from school elections to campaigns for national office — we thrive on the concept that the person or party with the most votes wins. So if there are more of 'us' than there are of 'them', then 'we' win. But along the way towards perfecting our democracies, we've had to reckon with the rights and needs of the underrepresented. Those who don't win the numbers game outright. A quote that is often erroneously attributed to Benjamin Franklin explains it this way: "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken away, not even by a 99% vote…. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority." 

In other words, in one way or another, at one time or another, every single one of us at some point in our lives, be it temporarily or congenitally, will find ourselves in a group, category or situation where we are outnumbered. And our rights as human beings are not to be abridged or abused because we lose the numbers game.

This goes to the heart of the bullying epidemic we're seeing today. The bullies believe they reflect majority opinion. They believe the majority of society has got their back and the ones they are targeting get the minority vote. Bullies don't comprehend freedom. They are the wolves voting on the life of the lamb.

This numbers game is fed by statistics. Of course we have to take into account the rights of minorities, the game says, but there are minorities and then there are minorities. You see, education and implementation of initiatives that inform the population and protect the rights of small groups still require time and resources. How do we allocate those resources? We have to be prudent, don't we? If a group is too small, if it is too far outside the mainstream, too different from the majority of us, how do we justify expending limited resources on them? The game then stops calling those minorities 'minorities', stops speaking of their human rights, civil rights or freedoms and starts to call them 'special interests' and begins to speak of not 'caving in' to their cries for 'special treatment'.

Nice twist, that. Neat little inversion. Peppered with code words. All of a sudden a group of people who are statistically outnumbered (blacks, Latinos, Asians, LGBTQ people, for instance) or are traditionally marginalised (women), become the bullies, not the bullied. The outrage of the majority is mobilised against those who are using 'identity politics' to claim 'special privileges' and are trying to force the vast majority of 'us' to bend to 'their' will. But no, the game says, we won't 'cave in' to their intimidation or to their 'agenda'. After all, why should we? Look how few of them there are? 

That was just the response some people gave to a recent report by the UK's Office of National Statistics regarding the number of bisexual, lesbian, gay (and they failed to count transgender) people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In 2009, the ONS reported that Britain's population was 61.8 million. This past month, the same agency claimed that there are only about 726,000 LGB people in all of Britain, a mere 1.5% of the population (I know. Those of you with calculators are going to say, wait, isn't 1.5% of 61,800,000 actually 927,000? Yeah, but who are we to quibble). Immediately the Daily Mail — a popular paper with right wing leanings, infamous for its 1934 reference to Hitler's "sturdy young Nazis" and the 1993 headline Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding— jumped on the 'caving in to special interests' bandwagon: Only one in 100 Britons is gay despite long-held myth. "The figure explodes the assumption -- long promoted by social experts and lobbyists -- that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten," the Mail says. And in a brilliant bit of Ye Olde Does-not-follow, they claim these low figures for bisexuals and gays are "further evidence that Britain remains a traditional society, [because] 71% told the same survey that they still regarded themselves as Christian."

'Lies, damned lies and statistics' is a phrase popularised most famously by Mark Twain to describe the persuasive power of numbers to bolster weak arguments. But it also illustrates the tendency of people to either applaud or disparage statistics depending on whether or not those statistics support dearly-held positions and preconceptions. Now this is not solely a Daily Mail or right wing tendency. We're all capable of this error, if we are over-eager about getting an important point across. But that does not excuse sloppy thinking or uncritical review of the numbers, or a biased presentation of the implications of the figures, particularly when so much is at stake. I hardly feel I am going out on a limb when I claim that what is at stake today, when it comes to the statistics about the LGBT population, are people's lives. "The number [of LGB people in Britain] is far lower," the Mail announces, "than the estimate used as a basis for the distribution of millions of pounds in public money to sexual equality causes." They then went on to quote Mike Judge of the Christian Institute who said, "A large amount of public money has been spent on the basis of higher figures, which have turned out to be a lie."

A lie. A deliberate falsification. Not 'previous estimates'. Not 'the results of studies with different methodologies'. Not 'the consequence of a variety of possible factors', such as LGB people not wanting to answer deeply intimate questions about themselves on the doorstep to a complete stranger with a clipboard while parents, partners, neighbours or other family members may be in earshot. Not that household surveys of this type are well-known to under-reach respondents who live alone, as many LGB people in Britain do because of a wide variety of factors (so say previous surveys). But rather, an outright lie.

They have lied to us. We have been hoodwinked. We, good people (i.e., good Christian heterosexual people, since the Mail took pains to continue to compare and contrast 'gay' and 'Christian' statistics throughout the article, as if both groups were mutually exclusive and directly comparable) have been deceived by the gay lobby's slick shell game into believing there were more of them than there are and money has been stolen out of our pockets  — the pockets of the majority of straight Christian Britons who ostensibly have little need of these 'sexual equality causes' that have been foisted on them because of deliberately falsified statistics. Mr Judge's implication is hardly subtle and a great deal can be easily extrapolated: we don't need to spend any more of our limited resources on these special interest anti-bullying programmes targeted at LGBT teens — the general anti-bullying campaigns will be enough. We don't need an expanded sexual orientation awareness module in sex and relationship education classes — just teach them about the regular old heterosexual birds and the bees without pandering to such a tiny minority's fringe interests. We don't need marriage equality, since this tiny minority already has civil partnerships — can you imagine the public funds that will need to be earmarked to change the system to allow just a portion of this handful of people to marry? There's so few of them, anyway, c'mon, they have enough. Enough is enough…. right?

Sentiments such as these are neither far fetched nor singular, nor a product of my imagination. And they are not limited to the UK. In the US, the Texan Republican Party published in their 2010 platform that "We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should 'family' be redefined to include homosexual 'couples'. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex… custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits." (Every time I read such statements, I'm prompted to ask if bisexuals would then be allowed to partially marry or half-maintain custody of their children. But I don't have the GOP's direct phone number, so I couldn't call. And something tells me my point would get lost in translation).

Such statements speak directly to the numbers game. We-the-majority feel we have the right to dictate the very deepest and most intimate aspects of the lives of that-minority.  We-the-majority will decide whose lives are truly valuable and worth living fully. And the effects of such thinking are devastating — in the 'special' case of LGBT youth, the effects are proving deadly.

Journalist Anderson Cooper put it so well during his recent appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show, when he spoke about "the words people use and the things people say" that enter into the consciousness of our children and teens. It "enters into their internal dialogue," he says. "And when you're a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself, and the worth that you give to yourself. I think we need to really focus on what language we're using and how we're treating these kids." What impact must the language of the Texan Republican Party have had on the citizens of Texas? the discussions they had over dinner? the sermons they listened to in church? the banter among kids in the school yard when a child that is a bit 'different' walks by? A child that is not in the majority? A child who walks, talks, dresses or, heaven forefend, even speaks words ("I'm gay. I'm lesbian. I'm bisexual. I'm transgender.") that mark them out as one of those 'special interests' who are lying to 'us' and forcing their agenda on 'us'. We'll show 'them'.

And the effects of these words and the deeds, policies and legislation that come in their wake are dreadful. Between 1970 and 2009, there have been over 150 worldwide studies that reported high rates of suicide among bisexual and gay people, particularly adolescents and young adults. As one American study summarised, bisexual and gay youth "are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30% of completed youth suicides annually." Other studies cite their figures in another way: these youth are "four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers." Two independent studies done in the late 90s, one in the US and one in New Zealand, report that "homosexual and bisexual men and women are at greater risk of suicidal ideation and overall mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts" throughout their lives.

But are these not just lies, damned lies and statistics as well? I think not. And not just because I agree with them and they bolster my argument. I judge statistics as openly as possible, looking into the way researchers collect and report their data, the funding bodies that back the studies, and the ideological bent of the people who do the study (one notorious and widely-published study on the purported 'non-existence' of male bisexuals turns out to have been done by a man with a noted homophobic eugenicist bent). I also judge statistics by their deeds — or rather, the deeds of those who wield them. Truth in the hands of the corrupted does little if any good. Even if a statistical report is unassailable in its methods, if it is used uncritically, hard-heartedly or self-interestedly the actions taken in its name can be injurious and, therefore, must be challenged. Basically, statistics are not there to make the majority 'more right' or 'more deserving' than the minority or marginalised.

What the LGBT teens who are now at risk do not need to hear is that some study says their numbers are so small they don't matter. Those that bully them do not need to hear that their parents, teachers, ministers, police and politicians will somehow and in some way turn a blind eye or, god forbid, support them in perpetrating their abuse because, heck, they outnumber the 'others' anyway.

What they need to hear is that they don't have to prove their worth to people who disparage them. They need to hear that they are good enough. That they are worthy. That they don't have to live either by the cloud or the sunshine shone by whatever evidence, statistics or research is cited at any particular moment in time. They need to hear that they are valued just as they are. That they are owed equal human and civil rights not because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. They are owed them because they are people.



Another Gay Teenager Suicide Story
Posted inbibloggers bisexual

Another Gay Teenager Suicide Story

It was May. He'd had enough. He taped his head inside a plastic bag, as he'd heard that was a quiet way to go. Wrapped more tape round his wrists behind him. crawled under the bed, restricting his movements and tried to remain calm.Keep calm and not ca...